The Obamacare Shock
What if it actually works to reduce the costs of US healthcare?
What if it actually works to reduce the costs of US healthcare?
141 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 79 previous comments
- You think Bill Gates needs insurance. That's what you said. It's obviously false, but that is the case you're making. That isn't serious at all.
It's not about not getting maintenance, it's about how I pay for mine. It's wealth redistribution, obviously: otherwise a mandate would be unnecessary. People with means don't need to be forced to buy insurance, if they want it. And if they aren't getting "maintenance," they won't get it just because they were forced to pay for it, because they could already pay for it if they wanted it. The mandate is all about forcing people to pay money into a system for other people to use that money. Period.
The people clogging up ERs are not those who need to be forced, they are the ones who cannot afford it, and they can afford it even less now, as costs have continued to rise. And people will still be clogging emergency rooms because there aren't enough doctors. Which will also increase prices, of course.
And I don't know why you keep pointing out the fact that with the ACA, costs are still increasing, despite the promises that they would decrease. You're only hurting your case.Jun 8, 2013
- Here's a word you don't understand. Responsibility. We have a responsibility to deal with our health. Bill Gates has it. I have it. You have it. And when you deny that, you're freeloading. If you intend not to buy insurance, you're intending to take health care and make me pay for it. That's what was happening before the ACA.
Your "option" of telling people without insurance to die is the stance of someone who sees no responsibility for being within society, the society which protects you, which guarantees your freedom, and without which you are no more free than a Somali refugee.
Don't like it? Please leave. There are lots of good people around the world who will gladly take your place as Americans. And they'll do better by this country than you're doing with your blathering and your refusal to accept responsibility and your calling license "freedom."Jun 8, 2013
- says, Here's a word you don't understand. Responsibility.
We have a responsibility to deal with our health. Bill Gates has it. I have it. You have it. And when you deny that ...
You're lying. I never denied anyone has a responsibility to deal with their health. In fact, contrary to your lie, I said my point isn't whether we get "maintenance," but how we choose to provide it.
You're the one denying here: denying the simple fact that you lied when you said we "need" insurance to provide our "maintenance." That is an obvious lie. Bill Gates can pay out of pocket. He doesn't need insurance. Your claim that he does is a lie.
If you intend not to buy insurance, you're intending to take health care and make me pay for it.
You're lying, obviously. My choice to not buy insurance simply means I will pay for health care out of pocket.
That's what was happening before the ACA.
You're lying, obviously. Many people chose to not buy insurance, because their risks were low and their means were sufficient that they could pay for themselves if necessary. More often, people simply bought catastrophic coverage, paying for all maintenance out of pocket. MANY people do that.
You're simply lying when you say they made anyone pay for them.
Your "option" of telling people without insurance to die ...
You're a damned liar. I never said or implied any such thing.
Don't like it? Please leave.
Fuck you, . You lie about what I say, you lie about what the ACA does, when confronted with arguments exposing your lies you never address them, you tell lie after lie after lie, and then -- based on those lies -- you say I should leave my country, the very country whose Constitution you piss on just because you don't like what it says.
Fuck you. You're a damned liar, and a total fool. But worse than all that is the fact that you reject the fact that people don't need government, or insurance, to provide for themselves. You're fucking insane.Jun 8, 2013
- Calling someone a liar because they call you on your bullshit is bullshit.Jun 8, 2013
- says, Calling someone a liar because they call you on your bullshit is bullshit.
True. But I didn't do that. I pointed out specific lies you made, and showed that they were lies.Jun 8, 2013
- My comment about "Too many people, especially Republicans", wasn't intended to target
allRepublicans. Just that much of the time people who feel that way tend to vote Republican.
Now. I agree that the fact that the system we have in the Netherlands seems to work for the Netherlands doesn't, on it's own, mean it's a good thing. I feel that it's been a good thing for us, and since it's almost a matter of national pride how well it works, there must be some reason why we feel that way. However, I am willing to concede the point that that, on it's own, isn't proof. I thought it was a useful data point, however.
Regarding making people pay for the healthcare of others: Yes. That is exactly the point of it. I don't think I understand why you think it's a form of welfare; It's not. It's just a way to redistribute the cost of health care in such a way that it levels out between people in good and in bad health. This is basically recognizing that people don't deliberately have bad health, and since it's a problem that everyone is likely to be confronted with at some point, it's good to make everyone pay for that, whether currently affected or not.
And I don't think that that is bad fiscal policy, either. Dollars spend on healthcare tend to be sound investments. Having people stay productive for longer tends to pays for itself. Already being covered when your health declines means that there is no financial barrier to going to a doctor early to have your problem looked at. Which means that more problems get caught early and solved better for less money.
So sure, it may not be a "great fiscal policy" in the short run. But if you consider it on a 50 year scale, I think it's actually going to be a net positive.
Now. Regarding corporate tax deductions: I have absolutely zero knowledge of that, so as far as I'm concerned you may be right. Or not. I have no way to know.
The rest of your comment is pretty much covered by the above.
Lowering the barriers for people to go and get healthcare is more important than 'competition' that can be had in other ways.
Especially the argument that competition will exist when people have to buy healthcare "as needed" - Right. Buying health insurance only when you fall ill. I can see that working right now. "Oh, you have this pre-existing medical condition? Well, here's the effect on your premium .."
That's not insurance. That's just another indirect way to pay your hospital bills, with a middleman that takes a profit on it in between.
Your focus on 'driving costs down' is the accountant's view of health. You just see a column of numbers, tot them up, and say "this is expensive". Of course it's expensive. Doctors don't grow on trees. Nor does scientific research. But if a few hundred dollars a month extra costs will ensure that somebody will remain productive for 10-20 years more than they otherwise would, that money is going to be well spend.
Finally, regarding the constitutionality of it: Your own Supreme Court disagrees with you, and thet are far more qualified to give an opinion on the matter than either of us. That is enough for a silly foreigner like me. :)Jun 9, 2013